Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians

Arnold, Clinton.  Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1989.

It has long been my understanding that some evangelicals get their demonology from movies such as The Exorcist and their understanding of spiritual warfare from slightly better, if somewhat deistic, sources.  In other words, for them, a demon is a fallen angel, but not to worry, none of that stuff happens today. I used to say that evangelicals got their understanding of the demonic realm from Dante and Milton.  That is not accurate. Demons rarely appear in Dante, and Milton has his own project that cannot be so simply reduced.

That is why Clinton Arnold’s work, a popularization of his dissertation, is so welcome.  He explains, with heavy background work, the spiritual reality of the world in which the average Ephesian lived.  That allows Paul’s references to “the powers” to hit home with new vigor.

My review could take several directions.  One could be a review of Arnold’s arguments and their cogency, or it could be as a practical manual for spiritual warfare.  Or both. Both are good.

Arnold helpfully summarizes every chapter, and through those summaries one gains a picture of the Christian’s positional, positional because he is in Christ, authority over the various powers that terrorized the minds of those in Asia Minor. Therefore, we will begin with an abstract of the whole project.

Abstract

Paul’s opponents in Ephesus are not Gnostics. Even though there are some dualist roots, none of the key tenets of later Gnostic teachings appears in Ephesians (or Colossians). For example, we see nothing of the Pleroma, so prominent with Irenaeus of Lyon’s opponents.  A more likely candidate is Jewish mysticism, but even here we have to be careful.  It is not clear why the world-capital of Artemis worship would be that interested in bastardized Jewish teachings.

When we approach the actual archeological evidence, a simpler conclusion appears: magic.  The average Ephesian pagan would have been far more interested in magical spells for daily use than ascending the mystical echelons of Jewish or Gnostic heavens.  Magic, as used here, is the manipulation of the physical world by spiritual means, namely spells, talismans, and the like.

What, then, is the relationship between “powers” and Artemis? The powers could either have been forces or personal demons.  The average Ephesian would not have cared too much about the distinction, as long as he got the desired result.

Because has defeated and been exalted over the powers, the Christian a) has nothing to fear from them, nor b) any reason to consult them.  Indeed, Paul transforms the “powers” language and reveals the Christian’s access to Christ’s own power.

Exposition and Analysis

Power, understood in the ancient world, was something close to a substance (36). It was similar to a “fluid” or “electricity,” to use an anachronism.  More formally, it was the capacity to effect change. Such a view was still operative in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa.  On the other hand, “power” still has a reference to “angels” or spirit-beings; interesting enough, they are marginalized by the end of this study. They are not that important, given the believer’s access to the true power in Christ.

Any discussion of dunamis must mention the closely-related “energia.”  Dunamis is the capacity to effect change; energia is the actualizing of that capacity (73). More important, though, is the fact that this “power” language has taken on personal dimensions largely absent in the Hellenistic world.  Therefore, when we pray, as Paul did in Ephesians 3:14-19, we ask for “inner strengthening through the Holy Spirit and through the indwelling Christ who roots the life of a believer in love, and (2) for a personal knowledge of both the power and love of Christ” (86).

In conclusion, the believer has no need to consult the powers.  Because he is in union with Christ, he has access to him who is already above all the powers.

We warmly recommend this book by Dr. Arnold.  It is technical and the reader should have some knowledge of Greek, but it is still reasonably accessible to the well-read layman.  

Powers of Darkness (Arnold)

I

n many ways this is a shortened version of his dissertation. But it can also function as a supernaturalist, evangelical response to the then (and now) current leftist evangelical fascination with “powers-talk.” It also documents how conservative evangelicals, thanks to some Charismatic influences, are taking the Bible seriously on principalities and powers.

It’s important to read Ephesians. It’s even more important to read the sections in Acts where Paul engaged in “Power Apologetics” against demons, magical grimoires, and riots.

The Stoichea

Arnold follows the RSV/NEB/TEV in reading the elemental spirits as personal beings, and not as abstract elements (Arnold 53). This seems to be the correct reading because it echoes Galatians 3-4 in seeing them as guardian tutors.

He has an excellent section on Judaism. I say excellent in general, for I will push back on some parts. He notes that Jews did have categories for the “demonic,” even if they weren’t as explicit as in New Testament times. This is true, but scholarship has since shed more light on this. Take Deut. 32:16-17. Most translations read something like, “They sacrificed to demons.”

By itself this isn’t too problematic, but it leads Arnold to draw some conclusions that are in tension with the rest of his work. Arnold writes, “Biblical writers attributed no real, independent existence to these deities. Instead they called them idols” (56). I know what he is wanting to do. He wants to safeguard against henotheism, and I commend that. But if he calls these entities demons, then he is forced to admit that they do have some kind of existence.

Sure, Zeus doesn’t exist. But I don’t see what exactly is gained by saying Zeus doesn’t exist, but the demonic presence behind Zeus does exist. But is that even what the text says in Hebrew? It says they sacrified to “shedim.” This is a territorial guardian spirit whose Akkadian root word connects it to the underworld. This doesn’t refute Arnold’s analysis, but it makes it much richer.

And while Arnold does posit some sort of pre-creation angelic fall, he realizes that the Old Testament never really says that. It posits Satan’s falling, to be sure, if only by implication.

Paul and the Powers

Fairly standard NT theology material here. Examines Paul’s use of “powers-language” and makes clear that gnosticism was not involved.

Contra Walter Wink

There has been a tendency in recent theology to equate the powers with socio-economic structures. Earlier theology would have seen the powers as influencing these structures but never identifying the two. He incorporates Paul’s use of “in Christ” language to negate any perceived need for a young believer to go towards angelic intermediaries, power-intermediaries, etc.

Hilariously, Wink commits the “illegitimate totality transfer fallacy” by arguing “that one term can be made to represent all the uses” (quoted in Arnold 199).

The book ends with practical guidelines for spiritual warfare today. He understands that belief in “Powers” and “spirits” today bothers Christians, even professed conservative ones. And he doesn’t back down. The bold believer is one who affirms the reality of shedim, powers, demons, etc., and is willing to engage them in spiritual warfare

Can cessationist pray Eph. 1:17?

Paul writes,

“That God would give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.”

What does “revelation” mean?  The bible lists several types:

1. Natural revelation (creation, logic, science, etc).
2. Special revelation (God’s speaking, theophanic appearances, etc).
   2a. The Bible.
   2b. Words of knowledge/prophetic utterances
3. Jesus

So when Paul wants God to give them a spirit of revelation, which kind does he mean? I think all sides can rule out (1), since it wouldn’t make much sense in the context of Paul’s prayer.  Let’s leave aside all varieties of (2) for a moment.  (3) could work but I am not sure Paul means that.  Strictly speaking, if (3) obtains then we have the following:

(3*) God would give a spirit of wisdom and Jesus in the knowledge of him.

Technically, that’s true.  And that’s not a bad way to pray.  But from our perspective I’m not sure that adds too much to the discussion.  What does it mean to have a spirit of Jesus?  Well, basic Sunday School lessons could work here, and the Bible elsewhere commends the Spirit of Christ.  But if revelation = Jesus, then what content does that add to our knowledge?  It’s not immediately clear.  And I don’t think that’s what cessationists have in mind when they say “revelation.”  Sure, they will quote Hebrews 1, thinking revelation ceased with the coming of Christ, but that only proves that Jesus is the final word, not the Bible.

Therefore, I suggest that when a cessationist reads Ephesians 1:17, he sees it as saying,

(2a*) God will give you a spirit of the closed canon of Scripture.

It’s not immediately wrong, but it’s clunky and almost certainly not what Paul had in mind.